Get Server Info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that by stating that it opens no file, starts no Word, and is paste-safe with no path, document name, or user name. It also discloses exactly what state it reports, including lock status, Word availability, path sandboxing, and update-check state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but information-dense: it front-loads the purpose, enumerates the reported details, and closes with a practical reassurance about paste-safety. A few items, like 'opens no file' and 'starts no Word,' repeat the same idea, but the overall structure earns its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what information is returned, that no document context is needed, that it is read-only, and that the result is safe to share. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents that no input is needed. The description adds useful confirmation by saying it needs no document or file, which clarifies that no implicit context is required either.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Report') and a distinct resource ('this server's build and environment'), then enumerates the exact content. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all document-oriented operations like get_document_info and delete_table.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It spells out that the tool needs no document, opens no file, and starts no Word, which tells an agent this is the universal server-level information tool rather than a document-scoped one. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling provides an equivalent server-info function, and the context makes the intended use obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.